The Stigmatization of the Liberal Label in Modern American Politics 1 Erik Asard Uppsala University A bstract: Liberalfam was the do111i11a/1f political ideology i11 the United States from the early 1930s until the mid lo /ale 1960s. During that period, Fra11k/i11 Roosevelt '.~ definition o.f "liberal" and "conservative" was widely accepred in America. Begin­ ning in the late 1960s and continuing in the 1970s and 1980s, the liberal label became increasingly contesred and maligned, and as a result many, if nor most, liberal politi­ cians stopped using it. Liberal politicians have not abandoned their liberal world-view, but nowadays they are much more inclined to refer ro themselves as "progressives." 111is article describes the rise and fall of the liberul label in modem U.S. politics and explains why it became a pejorative, shwmed by all the rece111 Democratic candidates fur president.from Bill ClinJon Jo Barack Obama. Keywords: Libera/- liberalism - conserva1ive-co11serva1is111-A111erica11 po/itics­ Fra11k/in Roosevelt- New Deal- Barack Oba111a-De111ocra1-Republica11- poli1ica/ rhetoric- li11guis1ic change The Rise of the Liberal Label In 1941 , President Franklin D. Roosevelt defined the differences between liberalism and conservatism in the United States thus: An earlier version of this article was presented at the Conference of the European Association for American Studies (EAAS) in Oslo, Norway, on May 9-12, 2008. 24 American Studies in Scandinavia, 41:1,2009 Generally speaking, in a representative form of government there arc usually two general schools of political belief-liberal and conservative ... The liberal party is a party wh ich believes that, as new conditions and problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to find new remedies with which to meet the ... The conservative party in government honestly and conscientiously believes the con­ trary. It believes that there is no necessity for the Government to step in, even when new conditions and new problems arise. It believes that, in the long run , individual initiative and private philanthropy can take care of all situations ... The clear and undisputed fact is that in these later yem·s, at least since l 932, the Democratic party has been the liberal party, and the Republican party has been the con­ servative party.2 When Roosevelt made this famous statement he was well aware of the fact that not all Republicans were conservatives and not all Democrats were liberals. His purpose was not to offer an exhaustive or precise definition of the terms, but to evoke a general feeling that the New Deal reforms repre­ sented what he called "true liberalism" and those of his opponents a dis­ credited "conservatism." In Roosevelt's parlance, liberalism was something good, and conservatism was bad. His usage of the terms set the standard for American political discourse for almost half a century.3 But Roosevelt's language did not go unchallenged. Particularly during the 1930s, there was a fierce struggle over the liberal label , and Roosevelt's opponents tried in vain to prevent his usage from becoming the accepted one. Herbert Hoover, one of Roosevelt's most persistent critics, chose "in­ dividualism" as his main ideological label. His chief goal, as the title of one of his books indicated, was to protect American Individualism. But Hoover also used the words "liberal" and "progressive," and by "liberal" he meant individual liberty and opposition to government bureaucracy and regulation. In other words, he used "liberal" in the old nineteenth-century meaning of the term.4 The one major label with which Hoover did not want to be identified in the 1920s and 1930s was the conservative label, but that is, ironically, the 2 Quoted in David Green, Sliapi11g Po/i1ical Co11scio11.mess: '/'lie Language of Polilics i11 A111 erica ji"Oln McKinley /0 Reagan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), 119. 3 Ibid., 119- 120. 4 Ibid., 95- 118; Herbert Hoover, American Individualism (Washington: Herbert Hoover Presidential Library Association, 1ul.) . C f. John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge , Tlte Right Nation: Conservative Power in A111erirn (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 8-9. THE STIGMATIZATION OF THE LIBERAL LABEL 25 one he was eventually saddled with and reluctantly accepted, after years of resistance. According to historian David Green, Hoover would have pre­ ferred to be called a liberal, but by the early 1940s Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers had conquered that label and transformed its meaning. Roosevelt and his followers succeeded in broadening the popularly accept­ ed meaning of liberal and liberalism to include not just individual freedom and property rights but also governmental activism and generosity.5 This important linguistic shift was made possible by various popular New Deal policies such as the public works and jobs programs, Social Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act and other social reforms, all of which were anathema to Herbert Hoover and the conservatives. For Hoover, liberalism meant restricting governmental power, whereas for Roosevelt it meant un­ leashing governmental power in combating social ills. In 1945, at the age of 71, Hoover for the fi rst time grudgingly accepted the designation of "con­ servative" and recommended that the Republicans openly accept that label. Being a conservative is "not a sin ," he wrote, noting that " lt]he conserva­ tives in Ameri ca are akin to the nineteenth century liberals of England." But the word "liberal" was now useless since it had been "polluted and raped of all its real meanings."6 Today it is bard to fathom how complete the New Dealers' rhetori cal victory was. ln 1950, li terary critic Lionel Trilling described the situation thus: "In the United States at this time liberalism is not onl y the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the pl ain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation ."7 Even after the Republican victories in 1952, when the Party recaptured the White House and won a majority of the seats in Congress, liberalism as an intel­ lectual and political doctrine continued to reign supreme. To the chagrin of its conservative supporters, President Dwight Eisen­ hower's administration ( 1953-61) did not try to undo the New Deal reforms 5 Compare the word "folkheni'' (people's home) in Sweden, which originally was used mostly hy conserva­ tives but which the Social Democrats in the 1920s and 1930s managed to conquer and tnmsform. Erik Asard and W. Lance Bennell, Democracy and the Marketplace of Ideas: Co111mr111iclllio11 tmd Govem111e111 i11 Sweden and tire United Srnres (Camb ri dge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 91-98. 6 Green, Slwpi11g Polirical Co11scia11s11 ess, 162 (quote): Paul Levine and Harry Papasotiriou,America since 1945: 'Ore American Mom e/11 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005). I 0-13. 7 George H. Nash. Tlie Cmr.rerwrrive //l/ellec11m/ Moveme/11 in America Since 1945 (New York: Basic Books, 1979), 58. Cf. Louis Hanz, The liberal 'fradirio11 i11 America: An illterpretario11 '!f American Polirical Tlwught Since tire Revolwio11 (New York: Harcourt Brace .Jovanovich, 1955). 26 American Studies in Scandinavia, 41: 1, 2009 or dismantle the welfare state , nor did it try to roll back communism in Eu­ rope. Instead, Social Security and une mployment benefits in creased and the budget deficit sky-rocketed. "Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history," Eisenhower told his more conservative brother Edgar.8 For the conservatives, Daniel Bell later wrote, "eight years of moderation proved more frustrating than twenty years of opposition."9 Lyndon Johnson's landslide victory over the right's standard­ bearer Barry Goldwater in 1964, followed by the launch of the Great So­ c iety programs and the enactment of the civil rights legislation, seemed to confirm the dominance of liberalism and the marginalization of the right. "These, without doubt, are the years of the liberal," economist John Kenneth Galbraith mused in 1. 964. "Almost everyone now so describes himself." 10 The Fall of the Liberal Label In retrospect, however, the 1964 presidential election was not as disastrous for conservatives as many liberal commentators thought at the time. True, Barry Goldwater suffered a major defeat, but he also managed to extend the Republican Party's support in the South, the Southwest, and the West and thereby lay the foundation for the conservative ascendancy in the 1970s and 1980s. Further, he energized over 600,000 people to make financial contributions and some four million to take an active part in his campaign. Thousands of his precinct workers later became officials in the resurgent conservative movement. Jn addition, Goldwater 's campaign helped launch the political career of Ronald Reagan. Those are a couple of the reasons why some analysts have called the 1964 election a "watershed in the history of American conservatism." 11 8 Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 7/ie Nig/11 Nation, 4 1 (quote); Levine & Papasotiriou, America since 1945 , 59-7 l. 9 Daniel Bell, "The Dispossessed (1962)," in Daniel Bell , ed., 71re l?adical /light (New Brunswick: Transac­ tion Publishers, third edition. 2002, with a new introduction by David Plotke), 3. The book was originally published in 1955 under the title Tire New America11 l?ight. Sec also Erik Asard , Hillary Rod/ram Clilllun: En politi.l'k bioxrafi (Lund: Histo ri ska Media, 2008). 89. 10 Micklethwait & Wooldridge, '/1re Hight Nation, 9. 11 Alf Tomas T!'!nnessen. "Conservatives for C hange: I low Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich Helped Or­ ganize, Fund, and Empower the American Right Wing. 1964-198 1" (Dissertation for the Ph.D. degree in humanities, Department of Literature, Area Studies, and European Languages, University of Oslo, 2008), 48-49 (quote on 49); Asan.l, Hillary /lodlwm Cli111on, 90.